Joshua Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mar 16 2016, 8:50 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven Knecht Gregory F. Zoeller
Vonderheide & Knecht, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana
Lafayette, Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joshua Johnson, March 16, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
08A02-1507-CR-884
v. Appeal from the Carroll Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kurtis G. Fouts,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
08D01-1501-CM-9
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] Joshua Johnson appeals his conviction for Theft, a class A misdemeanor, 1
arguing that there is insufficient evidence supporting the conviction. Finding
the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On January 11, 2015, Joshua Johnson went to a supermarket in Delphi. He
placed an order at the deli counter for a chicken breast and three chicken legs.
Two price stickers were generated, one for the breast and another for the legs,
and an employee stuck both stickers on the box holding the chicken and handed
it to Johnson. The employee observed Johnson walk over to the fountain
drinks area, peel off one of the stickers, and place the sticker in his pocket. The
employee informed her manager what she had observed. Johnson filled a
fountain drink and walked to a register, where he paid for the drink and the
chicken breast. He did not pay for the legs because he had removed that sticker
from the box. After the manager confronted Johnson about his failure to pay
for the chicken legs, Johnson exited the store and drove away with the chicken
breast and chicken legs. He did not offer to pay for the chicken legs.
[3] The employee and manager phoned the police, and both individuals later
identified Johnson from a photo array as the man who had stolen the chicken
legs. On January 13, 2015, the State charged Johnson with class A
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2(a).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 2 of 4
misdemeanor theft. Following a June 30, 2015, jury trial, the jury found
Johnson guilty as charged. On July 6, 2015, the trial court sentenced Johnson
to 365 days imprisonment, with 335 days suspended to probation. Johnson
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Johnson’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
conviction, we will neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility.
Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). We will consider only the
evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that may be
drawn therefrom, and we will affirm if a reasonable trier of fact could have
found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. To convict Johnson
of class A misdemeanor theft, the State was required to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally exerted unauthorized
control over the property of another person, with the intent to deprive the other
person of any part of its value or use. I.C. § 35-43-4-2(a).
[5] In this case, the record reveals the following evidence supporting Johnson’s
conviction:
 Johnson ordered a chicken breast and three chicken legs. Two price
stickers were generated and an employee placed both stickers on the box
before handing it to Johnson.
 The employee observed Johnson peel off one of the stickers and place it
in his pocket.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 3 of 4
 Johnson paid for the chicken breast but not the chicken legs and then
exited the store with the chicken after being confronted. He did not offer
to pay for the chicken legs.
 Both the employee and manager positively identified Johnson from a
photo array as the man who had stolen the chicken.
This evidence is sufficient to support Johnson’s conviction. His arguments to
the contrary amount to a request that we reweigh evidence and assess witness
credibility—a request we decline.
[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 08A02-1507-CR-884 | March 16, 2016 Page 4 of 4